On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Daniel Santos wrote:
> Hello Julia,
>
> I'm CCing LKML on this so that others can be involved.
>
>
> On 04/15/2018 12:43 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I saw that you introduced BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG in the Linux kernel a fe
Hello Julia,
I'm CCing LKML on this so that others can be involved.
On 04/15/2018 12:43 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I saw that you introduced BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG in the Linux kernel a few years
> ago.
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG is not safe when used in header files. V
On Tue, 2016-23-02 at 11:05:01 UTC, xinhui wrote:
> From: pan xinhui
>
> __xchg_called_with_bad_pointer() can't tell us what codes use {cmp}xchg
> in incorrect way. And no error will be reported until the link stage.
> To fix such a kind of issues easily, we use BUI
From: pan xinhui
__xchg_called_with_bad_pointer() can't tell us what codes use {cmp}xchg
in incorrect way. And no error will be reported until the link stage.
To fix such a kind of issues easily, we use BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG() here.
Signed-off-by: pan xinhui
---
change from V1:
From: pan xinhui
__xchg_called_with_bad_pointer() can't tell us what codes use {cmp}xchg
in incorrect way. And no error will be reported until the link stage.
To fix such a kind of issues easily, we use BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG() here.
Signed-off-by: pan xinhui
---
change from V1:
supplied condition is *false*.
Next, we add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG to bug.h which simply wraps
compiletime_assert, inverting the logic, so that it fails when the
condition is *true*, consistent with the language "build bug on." This
macro allows you to specify the error message you want emitte
supplied condition is *false*.
Next, we add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG to bug.h which simply wraps
compiletime_assert, inverting the logic, so that it fails when the
condition is *true*, consistent with the language "build bug on." This
macro allows you to specify the error message you want emitte
supplied condition is *false*.
Next, we add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG to bug.h which simply wraps
compiletime_assert, inverting the logic, so that it fails when the
condition is *true*, consistent with the language "build bug on." This
macro allows you to specify the error message you want emitte
On 11/13/2012 04:13 PM, danielfsan...@att.net wrote:
> +#define __compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __func) \
> + do {\
> + bool __cond = !(condition); \
> + extern v
of
> the POSIX assert macro, compiletime_assert creates a build-time error
> when the supplied condition is *false*.
>
> Next, we add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG to bug.h which simply wraps
> compiletime_assert, inverting the logic, so that it fails when the
> condition is *true*, consistie
supplied condition is *false*.
Next, we add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG to bug.h which simply wraps
compiletime_assert, inverting the logic, so that it fails when the
condition is *true*, consistient with the language "build bug on." This
macro allows you to specify the error message you want emitte
On 10/30/2012 08:02 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 08:19:05PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 03:57:15PM -0500, danielfsan...@att.net wrote:
>>> Remove duplicate code by converting BUILD_BUG and BUILD_BUG_ON to just
>>> call
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 08:19:05PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 03:57:15PM -0500, danielfsan...@att.net wrote:
> > Remove duplicate code by converting BUILD_BUG and BUILD_BUG_ON to just
> > call BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG. This not only reduces source code bloa
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 06:17:47PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> can BUILD_BUG_ON and BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG both use __BUILD_BUG_INTERNAL?
>
> In the BUILD_BUG_ON msg will be "BUILD_BUG_ON failed" and line empty.
> Can that even work?
Yes it can, I should simply l
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 03:57:15PM -0500, danielfsan...@att.net wrote:
> Remove duplicate code by converting BUILD_BUG and BUILD_BUG_ON to just
> call BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG. This not only reduces source code bloat, but
> also prevents the possibility of code being changed for one macro and
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 03:57:14PM -0500, danielfsan...@att.net wrote:
> Add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG which behaves like BUILD_BUG_ON (with optimizations
> enabled), except that it allows you to specify the error message you
> want emitted as the third parameter. Under the hood, this
Add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG which behaves like BUILD_BUG_ON (with optimizations
enabled), except that it allows you to specify the error message you
want emitted as the third parameter. Under the hood, this relies on
_BUILD_BUG_INTERNAL, which does the actual work and is pretty-much
identical to
Remove duplicate code by converting BUILD_BUG and BUILD_BUG_ON to just
call BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG. This not only reduces source code bloat, but
also prevents the possibility of code being changed for one macro and
not for the other (which was previously the case for BUILD_BUG and
BUILD_BUG_ON
Add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG which behaves like BUILD_BUG_ON (with optimizations
enabled), except that it allows you to specify the error message you
want emitted as the third parameter. Under the hood, this relies on
_BUILD_BUG_INTERNAL, which does the actual work and is pretty-much
identical to
Remove duplicate code by converting BUILD_BUG and BUILD_BUG_ON to just
call BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG. This not only reduces source code bloat, but
also prevents the possibility of code being changed for one macro and
not for the other (which was previously the case for BUILD_BUG and
BUILD_BUG_ON
On 10/05/2012 04:02 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 02:42:48PM -0500, danielfsan...@att.net wrote:
>>> Add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG which behaves like BUILD_BUG_ON (with optimizations
>>> turn
On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 22:58 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 02:42:48PM -0500, danielfsan...@att.net wrote:
> > Add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG which behaves like BUILD_BUG_ON (with optimizations
> > turned enabled), except that it allows you to specify the error messa
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 02:42:48PM -0500, danielfsan...@att.net wrote:
> > Add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG which behaves like BUILD_BUG_ON (with optimizations
> > turned enabled), except that it allows you to specify the error
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 02:42:48PM -0500, danielfsan...@att.net wrote:
> Add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG which behaves like BUILD_BUG_ON (with optimizations
> turned enabled), except that it allows you to specify the error message
> you want emitted as the third parameter. Under the hood, this
Remove duplicate code by converting BUILD_BUG and BUILD_BUG_ON to just
call BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG. This not only reduces source code bloat, but
also prevents the possibility of code being changed for one macro and
not for the other (which was previously the case for BUILD_BUG and
BUILD_BUG_ON
Add BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG which behaves like BUILD_BUG_ON (with optimizations
turned enabled), except that it allows you to specify the error message
you want emitted as the third parameter. Under the hood, this relies on
BUILD_BUG_INTERNAL{,2}, which does the actual work and is pretty-much
identical
26 matches
Mail list logo
